February 26, 2013
The Gatekeepers
Will the film become a watershed in Israeli life? Will Israeli audiences walk out of the theaters re-thinking what they thought they knew about Israel’s albatross? The inauspicious answer begins with the fact that for Israelis, there is little that is new or revelatory about the chiefs’ confessions, nor the basic dilemmas in general. Most know that some Shin Bet chiefs criticize the state’s security policies after leaving office, that Ami Ayalon has a conflict resolution initiative with Al-Quds University president Sari Nusseibeh, and that Yaacov Peri is active in center-left political circles (he has now entered Knesset with Yesh Atid, Yair Lapid’s centrist party). The film must also be considered in a context where the occupation is a paradigm that rules Israeli life. Historic empires drew legitimacy from heaven; by contrast, paradigms are supposed to rest on empirical truths that are nearly unquestionable and can withstand disagreements over their finer points. For example, most Israelis believe that “there’s no Palestinian partner,” and that this is why the occupation continues. Israelis are convinced that they themselves want peace (nearly 60 percent in the December 2012 Peace Index survey support a two-state solution), but that Palestinians continue to hate and refuse to recognize Israel.more from Dahlia Scheindlin at Dissent here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 08:48 AM | Permalink






















Comments
Remember who those gatekeepers are and were and ask whether you are being being fed pap, filling but not nutritious, while the settlers go on grabbing land and the law backs them by infinite delays. This article by Scheindlin http://972mag.com/gilad-schalit-once-a-captive-is-now-a-soldier-again/25863/ may be nearer her true sentiments. Shalit radiating perfect innocence in comparison to the child stone throwers as part of a Palestinian prisoner bank ready to be cashed out.
This is export grade pap.
Posted by: michael reidy | Feb 27, 2013 4:26:17 AM
True, Israel's complete disregard of world opinion about expansion of the settlements continues unabated.
Yet, description of the film as "pap" is too harsh. Films and articles that expose dissent within the Israeli establishment serve a need. Their impact within Israel might not be significant. But a few ripples here, a few ripples there are better than remaining oblivious of what is going on.
Posted by: waqnis | Feb 27, 2013 10:45:34 AM
All 6 of them, all at the same time. Unlikely and it stinks of arrogant psyops. It gives hope that there may be some internal sea change and takes the heat out of external agitation for justice. Boycott and divestment is what really makes an impression and is perhaps what is behind this.
Posted by: michael reidy | Feb 28, 2013 5:34:44 PM
Post a comment